Preview Newsletter
ACC PM
-
More US States Attack Federal TSCA Reform Bill
Apr 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
More US states have voiced concerns about the bipartisan federal Senate bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Top Problems With New House Chemical Proposal
Apr 9, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Consumers rightly expect that the chemicals used in everyday products are safe. But draft legislation released by three members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce falls far short of what’s needed to evaluate and regulate potentially dangerous chemicals. -
US Government 'Abandoning' Green Electronics Rating System
Apr 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A new presidential Executive Order on US federal sustainability efforts could mean that a tool that allows purchasers to identify electronics products that meet standards on hazardous substances is abandoned by the federal government, two NGOs claim. -
Bloomberg Criticizes New York Fracking Ban
Apr 9, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Erica Orden
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg criticized the state’s ban on hydraulic fracturing, describing the move as “misguided” and instead touting the benefits of natural gas. -
Industry Estimate of U.S. Gas Supply Rises, As Shale Wells Hold Up
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The estimated potential supply of natural gas in the United States has jumped a notch, according to a major industry report, driven by steady increases from new fields and improving technology. -
Bleak Forecast for North America's LNG Industry
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Most North American liquefied natural gas export projects are on the cusp of cancellation thanks to an emerging glut of LNG on the global market, according to a Moody's Investors Service Inc. forecast. -
Study Suggests Fracking Could Release Radon From Ground
Apr 9, 2015 | USA Today
By Liz Szabo and Doyle Rice
Levels of cancer-causing radon gas in Pennsylvania homes have increased as the fracking industry has expanded, a new study shows. -
EDF Takes Heat for Methane Fracking Study
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
The Environmental Defense Fund's collaboration with the natural gas industry to study methane leaks has some environmentalists questioning its advocacy chops. -
Industry Groups Would 'Welcome' New Regulations
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Daniel Bush
Oil and gas industry leaders today said they would welcome new federal regulations for offshore drilling so long as they don't restrict energy production or duplicate safety measures that producers put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster. -
Grid Operator Says Regional Approach to Clean Power Plan Possible, Yet Costly
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Edward Klump
The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) said yesterday it could use a regional approach to comply with U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan, although the cost would be an estimated $2.9 billion a year. -
Report Touts Jobs as Benefit of Va. Compliance with Clean Power Plan
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
If Virginia chooses to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan by using most of the tools suggested by the agency, the result would be more than 5,700 new jobs by 2029, according to a report issued today by clean energy advocates. -
Will EPA's Clean Power Plan Help or Hurt the Poor?
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Environmental advocates and coal interests waging war over U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are locking horns in a messaging battle about whether the climate regulations will help or hurt the poor. -
EPA Suggests States Withdraw Redundant Air Plans To Help Clear Backlog
Apr 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Janet McCabe, EPA's acting air chief, is suggesting that states should voluntarily withdraw outdated Clean Air Act state implementation plans (SIPs) still pending at the agency in order to help clear a backlog of hundreds of the air law compliance plans that has prompted calls for reform of the SIP process. -
Why 2015 Could Be a Record Year for the Greening of U.S. Energy
Apr 9, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
In general, changes to our energy system come slowly. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. -
Industry Cites EPA Uncertainty In Sustained Push For TCE Analysis Change
Apr 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Industry officials say an EPA analysis showing some agency scientists have low confidence in their conclusion that the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) poses a risk of cardiac birth defects undermines the agency's recent rejection of an industry request to correct that determination, which could boost industry's ongoing push to revise the conclusion. -
Vapor Intrusion, TCE Increase Liability And Planning At Brownfield Sites
Apr 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Changes to federal approaches and state programs for assessing and mitigating risks from vapor intrusion, especially the common contaminant trichloroetheylene (TCE), are increasing liability at contaminated sites known as brownfields, and forcing owners and developers to better plan how to reduce risks from contamination left in place. -
Pacific Northwest Tribe Sues Over Crude-by-Rail Shipments
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
An American Indian tribe is taking on one of the nation's biggest railroad operators, suing BNSF Railway Co. over crude oil shipments on tribal land in Washington state.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
-
More US States Attack Federal TSCA Reform Bill
Apr 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
More US states have voiced concerns about the bipartisan federal Senate bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the attorneys general of Vermont and Massachusetts have written to Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer and Edward Markey, setting out their objections. The latter have proposed counter legislation, known as the Boxer-Markey bill.
Ms Boxer, the minority leader of the key federal Senate committee considering TSCA reform proposals, the Environment and Public Works (EPC) Committee, has published a number of letters in recent weeks from state officials critical of the the bipartisan Udall-Vitter bill (S.697).
In his letter to Ms Boxer and EPW Committee Republican chairman James Inhofe, MPCA commissioner John Linc Stine said: “Unfortunately, we cannot support S.697 in its current form, due to the extraordinary and possibly unprecedented degree to which states are excluded from having any role relating to chemicals of concern within their borders.”
All three states cite serious concerns on the contentious issue of preempting state requirements, as well as the elimination of the state authority’s ability to enforce federal restrictions.
“The TSCA preemption scheme, as drafted, is confusing and any suggestion that retaining the existing scheme will lead to an unmanageable conflict among state requirements is misplaced,” said Massachusetts attorney general, Maura Healey in her letter to Mr Markey.
Ms Healey also said she understood that the Udall-Vitter bill may be on “an accelerated track” for a vote in the current Congress.
Wendy Morgan, Vermont’s assistant attorney general, told Ms Boxer that the bill’s preemption provisions could result in nearly a decade, during which “potentially dangerous chemicals would go unregulated”. The bill allows the EPA to take up to three years to complete a safety assessment. Then two more years to declare a final regulation and up to another two to extend the regulatory process, plus additional time allowed for the new rule to enter into compliance, she said.
Ms Morgan felt too that the proposed revisions jeopardise the state’s ability to address toxic chemicals; which current TSCA regulations afford.
“By establishing a system wherein states are able to regulate toxic chemicals, before the federal government has acted, and are able to enforce federal requirements when the federal government has yet to act, TSCA has been vital,” she said.
Both Minnesota and Massachusetts were worried about the bill’s language, which the MPCA’s Stine described as “vague and non-specific”. He said: “The MPCA is concerned that such broad and poorly defined restrictions could interrupt important toxics reduction and pollution prevention work at the MPCA, and interfere with efforts to provide better information about the presence of chemicals of concern in consumer products.”
Attorneys general, representing the states of California, New York, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Oregon and Washington, have also publically objected to the new bill (CW 24 March 2015).
-
Top Problems With New House Chemical Proposal
Apr 9, 2015 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Consumers rightly expect that the chemicals used in everyday products are safe. But draft legislation released by three members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce falls far short of what’s needed to evaluate and regulate potentially dangerous chemicals. Simply put, this new draft would fail to ensure that chemicals are safe, fail to set tough deadlines for action, fail to move quickly to review and regulate the most dangerous chemicals, and fail to provide the federal Environmental Protection Agency with adequate resources.
Here are the top problems with this new draft:Chemicals Still Not Safe – Toxic industrial chemicals that end up in people’s bodies, and even contaminate babies before they are born, should be at least as safe as pesticides. However, the new draft would retain the weaker “no unreasonable risk of harm” standard, rather than the “reasonable certainty of no harm” standard applied to pesticides on produce and food additives.
Costs May Still Trump Health – The new draft is, at best, ambiguous about whether and when the EPA must consider costs and benefits when determining how to regulate risky chemicals. While one section seems to exclude consideration of costs and benefits and eliminates a requirement to select the least burdensome option, another section says EPA must consider the economic consequences of chemical regulations and impose requirements that are cost-effective.
No Deadlines For Action – The EPA estimates that roughly 1,000 chemicals need immediate health and safety review. Under the new draft, it could take EPA a century or longer to review the most dangerous chemicals. EPA could take up to five years to review a single chemical and there are no deadlines for implementing restrictions, phase-outs or bans. In particular, the new draft does not require quick action to regulate asbestos.
Pay to Play for Safety Reviews – The new draft would allow manufacturers to receive expedited review of their favored chemicals if they are willing to pay a fee, but it would not require expedited review of asbestos or extremely dangerous chemicals that persist in the environment and build up in people. Consumers would have to count on Congress, not industry, to fund reviews of these dangerous chemicals.
Tougher Judicial Review – The new draft would retain the “substantial evidence” standard for judicial review – which confers an enormous advantage to industry in regulatory and judicial proceedings – rather than the “arbitrary and capricious” standard that strengthens EPA’s authority in nearly all other agency actions. This heightened standard was one of the reasons EPA was unable to ban asbestos more than two decades ago.
Fails to Preserve State Actions – The new draft also fails to preserve actions already taken by states to protect consumers. States have led the way to in recent years, enacting dozens of laws to ban or restrict chemicals that have driven product reformulations across the nation. -
US Government 'Abandoning' Green Electronics Rating System
Apr 9, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A new presidential Executive Order on US federal sustainability efforts could mean that a tool that allows purchasers to identify electronics products that meet standards on hazardous substances is abandoned by the federal government, two NGOs claim.
Executive Order 13693 sets out requirements on how federal departments and agencies will increase resource efficiency and improve their environmental performance. It includes guidelines on the purchasing of environmentally sustainable electronics products but has drawn criticism for failing to mention rating system, the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (Epeat).
Initially funded by the EPA, Epeat was developed to help institutional purchasers select and compare electronics equipment on their environmental performance. One of the orders required agencies to acquire Epeat-registered electronic products for at least 95% of acquisitions.
The Electronics Takeback Coalition and the Green Electronics Council (which manages Epeat), say that by deleting references to the tool, the order effectively revokes the provisions included in two previous federal government orders, which established and maintained it.
“Federal Agencies, private sector purchasers and environmental advocates alike have asked the Obama Administration to continue the Executive Order reference to Epeat,” said the Green Electronics Council. “They have expressed surprise at the appearance of abandoning an important sustainability programme that has worked through voluntary, market-based incentive rather than regulation.”
In a letter to the Federal Environment Executive, plus several members of congress and government agency officials, including Jim Jones, head of the EPA's chemicals office, Electronics Takeback Coalition national coordinator, Barbara Kyle, says Epeat encourages companies pursuing safer chemical strategies to go beyond simply what is regulated.
“This is critical, as regulations around the world are barely scratching the surface of the hazardous chemicals problem in electronics,” she adds. The letter recommends that Epeat is included in the order's implementation instructions.
The NGOs are also concerned with a clause in the order that gives agencies the option to use any voluntary standard, developed using a consensus process. The groups say such a approach, which would involve multiple stakeholders identifying standards, would not guarantee the use of strong criteria or provide meaningful guidance to federal purchasers for identifying greener products.
“We urge you to revise the executive order and eliminate the low bar option for selecting purchasing standards, simply because they are a so-called 'consensus' standard,” the letter says.
To qualify for Epeat registration, electronics products must meet certain environmental criteria. Products are measured against both required and optional criteria and are then rated bronze, silver or gold, depending on how many they comply with.
The scheme covers PCs and displays, imaging equipment and televisions. It includes several categories of environmental attributes that cover the full lifecycle of electronic products, including the reduction and elimination of environmentally sensitive materials and use of hazardous substances.
For PCs and displays to qualify, they must comply with the EU Directive on the restriction of hazardous substances (RoHS) in electrical and electronic equipment, report on the amount of mercury in light sources and eliminate intentionally added SCCP flame retardants and plasticisers in certain applications. Optional criteria include use of batteries free of lead, cadmium and mercury, PVC-free large plastic parts and the elimination of intentionally added hexavalent chromium and cadmium.
Imaging equipment and televisions must also comply with RoHS. These two categories are also required to comply with provisions of the EU batteries Directive. Optional criteria include further reduction of the use of lead and cadmium under the RoHS Directive and chemicals on the EU REACH candidate list of substances of very high concern (SVHCs).
Epeat was developed by representatives from electronics manufacturers, environmental groups, trade associations, government, recycling firms and academics.
-
Bloomberg Criticizes New York Fracking Ban
Apr 9, 2015 | The Wall Street Journal
By Amy Harder and Erica Orden
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg criticized the state’s ban on hydraulic fracturing, describing the move as “misguided” and instead touting the benefits of natural gas.
“It’s a misguided policy,” Mr. Bloomberg said Wednesday in a phone interview with The Wall Street Journal. “To keep coal-fired power plants in upstate New York and not frack doesn’t make any sense at all.”
In late December, after having pushed off a decision for most of his first term in office, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said his administration would prohibit hydraulic fracturing statewide, making it the first state with significant potential to become a major natural-gas producer to ban fracking.
In announcing its decision, the Democratic administration argued that potential health concerns related to the practice outweighed any economic benefits it might offer the state.
Mr. Bloomberg, who had not commented publicly about the ban before Wednesday, said he has not spoken with Mr. Cuomo on this.ENLARGENew York Gov. Andrew Cuomo PHOTO: MIKE GROLL/ASSOCIATED PRESS
In a statement, Tom Mailey, the director of media relations at New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation, said the state’s review of fracking found “significant uncertainties” about a range of health concerns and the efficacy of regulations in protecting public health.
“Further, with the exclusion of sensitive natural, cultural and historic resources and the increasing number of towns that have enacted bans and moratoria, the risks substantially outweigh any potential economic benefits of” fracking, Mr. Mailey said in an email. He did not specifically address what Mr. Bloomberg said.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technology used after the drilling process that has unlocked vast reserves of natural gas and oil across the country but has drawn controversy for its environmental impact, especially the risk of polluting drinking-water supplies.
Mr. Bloomberg said the economic and health benefits of natural gas, especially compared with other fossil fuels like coal, outweigh the potential health impacts, which he says could be prevented with tough regulation.
Mr. Bloomberg also criticized Mr. Cuomo’s decision to expand non-Indian casino gaming in the state. The Cuomo administration argued for gambling’s potential to boost the fragile economies upstate and in New York’s Southern Tier region. In December the state recommended licenses for three non-Indian casino projects statewide, and it may award a fourth.
The initial three recommendations were announced by the administration the same day it announced its decision to ban fracking, and many interpreted the timing as an attempt to offset the brunt of the fracking ban with the promise of casino revenue.
“Our strategy in New York state seems to be to open gambling casinos so we can rip the lungs out of the poor to subsidize upstate real-estate developers,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “That doesn’t help anyone in the area. I would certainly frack.”
Mr. Bloomberg spoke with The Wall Street Journal after announcing at a Washington, D.C., rally that he was donating $30 million to the Sierra Club’s anticoal campaign, adding to the initial $50 million he gave to the environmental organization four years ago.
But he said he is not donating to the group’s parallel anti-natural gas campaign, which is working to eliminate natural gas along with coal as an effort to combat climate change. “Today no, because there is no viable alternative” to coal-fired electricity without gas, Mr. Bloomberg said.
Mr. Bloomberg has donated $6 million to the Environmental Defense Fund, widely regarded as a more centrist environmental organization than the Sierra Club, to help its work fighting for tough state regulations of fracking.
Mr. Bloomberg, who was mayor of New York City from 2002 to 2013, is CEO of Bloomberg L.P., a global financial-data and media company he founded, and also a climate-change envoy for the United Nations. He describes himself as an independent politician today, though he’s been a member of both the Republican and Democratic parties throughout his career.
-
Industry Estimate of U.S. Gas Supply Rises, As Shale Wells Hold Up
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The estimated potential supply of natural gas in the United States has jumped a notch, according to a major industry report, driven by steady increases from new fields and improving technology.
The biennial estimate of the Potential Gas Committee rose 6 percent, a far cry from the leap the estimate made in the early days of the shale boom in 2008. Still, the estimate of 2,515 trillion cubic feet (tcf) released yesterday is the highest resource evaluation in the committee's 50-year history. It topped the previous peak established in the last report two years ago by 131 tcf.
And John Curtis, who heads up the estimate as director of the Potential Gas Agency at the Colorado School of Mines, said the steady rise amid significant consumption has proved wrong those who predicted that the shale boom will go bust amid steep decline curves for shale wells.
"The wells are holding out," said Curtis, a professor emeritus of geology and geological engineering at CSM.
Beyond that, Curtis said, companies are continuing to explore new plays. For example, operators have drilled preliminary wells in Kentucky's little-discussed Rogersville Shale.
"There are still shales to be evaluated," Curtis said.
And the importance of shale to the country's gas supply continues to grow. The committee's total assessed shale gas resource of 1,253 tcf for 2014 accounts for approximately 61 percent of the country's traditional (non-coalbed) potential resources, up from 57 percent in 2012.
The report offers a most likely figure for the amount of natural gas from all sources that can be delivered with today's technology under reasonable price assumptions. It does not estimate how much gas will actually be produced from shale basins or how fast production will grow because it does not consider the effect of future gas prices, technology or regulation on year-to-year production.
Combining the committee estimate of 2,515 tcf of technically recoverable gas from all sources with the Energy Department's figure of 338 tcf in proved dry gas resources yields a total estimated U.S. gas supply of 2,853 tcf, an increase of 161 tcf above 2012.
The estimates are based on new analyses of recent drilling, well-test and production data.
The assessments are made by about 100 energy industry professionals who volunteer to work on the biennial reviews. Committee members individually assess 90 onshore and offshore provinces, looking at three resource categories of decreasing geological certainty -- probable, possible and speculative. Assessors give their estimates of minimum, maximum and most likely volumes for the three categories and then a series of statistical calculations produces expected volumes for each area and also in the nation.
The Atlantic area ranks again as the country's richest resource area, driven by successive increases in estimates of Appalachian shale formations. It has 35 percent of the country's traditional resources. The Gulf Coast has 23 percent, the Rocky Mountains have 18 percent and the midcontinent has 12.5 percent.
The biggest gains were from Appalachian shales, including the Rogersville. The estimate for the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville rose by 137 tcf.
But offshore potential for the Atlantic is essentially an afterthought, a tiny amount of gas based on estimates that haven't changed since the 1970s. The Interior Department, though, finalized a plan last June to allow seismic oil and gas surveys from Delaware south to the Florida border.
The Arkoma and Anadarko basins (conventional reservoirs and shales) saw modest declines. But within the midcontinent, those declines were offset by substantially higher evaluations of the Barnett Shale.
-
Bleak Forecast for North America's LNG Industry
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
Most North American liquefied natural gas export projects are on the cusp of cancellation thanks to an emerging glut of LNG on the global market, according to a Moody's Investors Service Inc. forecast.
The credit rating agency issued a bleak outlook for North America's burgeoning LNG industry, claiming it made little economic sense to shell out billions of dollars in investments in each venture as countries, specifically the Asian markets, scale back on importing new LNG supplies.
"Many sponsors -- including those in the U.S., Canada and Mozambique that have missed that window of opportunity as oil prices have declined -- will face a harder time inking the final contracts, most likely resulting in a delay or a cancellation of their projects," the agency said.
In the global LNG market, most contractors remain linked to historic crude oil prices, which, as those prices slumped, spelled out a downturn in revenue for the LNG industry (Brent Jang, Toronto Globe and Mail, April 7). -- KS
-
Study Suggests Fracking Could Release Radon From Ground
Apr 9, 2015 | USA Today
By Liz Szabo and Doyle Rice
Levels of cancer-causing radon gas in Pennsylvania homes have increased as the fracking industry has expanded, a new study shows.
The study is a preliminary "first look" into a possible connection between fracking and radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas, says co-author Joan Casey. While the study doesn't conclusively prove that fracking releases radon from the ground, the findings are concerning, says Casey, a researcher at the University of California-Berkeley and University of California-San Francisco.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, has spurred a boom in oil and natural-gas production. The fracking process blasts millions of gallons of water -- mixed with sand and chemicals -- deep underground to break apart shale deposits and release natural gas.
While supporters of fracking says it's a safe source of energy, opponents are concerned that the process could contaminate local water supplies and even contribute to earth quakes.
Authors of the new study, published today in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, say they focused on Pennsylvania because it has one of highest residential radon levels in the country, and because the state has a huge, detailed database of home radon measures.
Pennsylvania's high radon levels stem from the type of bedrock that runs through much of the state, which contains radioactive materials such as uranium and radium, which degrade into radon, an invisible gas, Casey says.
Radon can seep into basements through cracks in a home's foundation and become trapped in homes that aren't well ventilated.
Doctors are concerned about radon because it's the second-leading cause of lung cancer, behind only tobacco, says Janice Nolen, assistant vice president of national policy at the American Lung Association. Radon causes 21,000 lung cancer deaths a year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Authors analyzed more than 860,000 indoor radon measurements from Pennsylvania's database, taken from Jan. 1, 1989 to Dec. 31, 2013.
Researchers found that radon levels fluctuated from 1989 to 2004. But radon levels in the state began to rise around 2004, when fracking really took off, the study says.
Authors also noticed that radon concentrations were 21% higher in buildings with well water than in those using municipal water. Radon can dissolve in water. So it's possible that radon enters homes through showers and faucets, then spreads into the air, says study coauthor Brian Schwartz, a professor of environmental health sciences at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.
Schwartz notes that it's possible that something other than fracking caused home radon levels to rise. For example, homes may have become more energy efficient since 2004. Although well-insulated homes save energy, they can also trap radon inside, he says.
A top industry group was unimpressed with the study. The Marcellus Shale Coalition, Pennsylvania's leading natural gas organization, provided USA TODAY with this statement:
"It's unfortunate, yet not unexpected, that some anti-shale activists continue to peddle profoundly flawed and unsubstantiated claims, such as this, based purely on hypothetic and perhaps pre-determined narrative-driven 'cause and effect' conclusions with the goal of generating fear," the statement read. "Thankfully, however, these suggestive scare tactics veiled as 'research' are easily refuted with readily available unbiased, fact-based data and independent scientific findings."
Authors of today's study acknowledge that their findings conflict with those of a January study from Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, which reported that "there is little potential for additional radon exposure to the public due to the use of natural gas extracted from geologic formations located in Pennsylvania."
Pennsylvania officials, however, say it's difficult to compare the two studies, because they measured radon in very different ways.
While Casey and Schwartz's paper included radon measurements from homes, the Pennsylvania state report measured radon at fracking wells, gas processing facilities, disposal sites and waste water processing facilities and other places, says the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Ken Reisinger. The state report measured radon levels in the natural gas coming out of the ground, as well as in air near the fracking facilities. Radon levels weren't higher than expected, Reisinger says.
Reisinger questioned Casey and Schwartz' conclusion that fracking may be causing radon levels to rise. That's because their report also found rising radon levels in parts of the state with no fracking.
Casey and Schwartz say researchers should conduct more detailed studies to see if their findings can be confirmed.
Some health experts say the link between radon and fracking is worrisome.
"There are a tremendous number of poorly understood and potentially serious health risks associated with fracking, one of which is exposure to radioactivity," says Aaron Bernstein, a pediatrician and associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at the Harvard H.T. Chan School of Public Health. "We simply do not have anything close to adequate safeguards for people's health."
Fracking has been linked to a wide spectrum of health problems for Americans across the country, according to a December report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.
That report said Americans who live near oil and gas drilling wells are exposed to fracking-related air pollution in the form of chemicals such as benzene and formaldehyde.
-
EDF Takes Heat for Methane Fracking Study
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
The Environmental Defense Fund's collaboration with the natural gas industry to study methane leaks has some environmentalists questioning its advocacy chops.
Environmental groups almost never do their own scientific research, but in 2011, EDF decided to try its hand at measuring methane leaks caused by hydraulic fracturing. They wondered whether the leaks would outweigh the benefits of fracking for natural gas in order to reduce coal burning.
In order to get accurate measurements and access to fracking sites, EDF partnered with the natural gas industry, which also helped fund the research.
That step has been controversial among other environmental groups, many of which believe fracking should be banned altogether.
"What EDF is trying to do is put filters on cigarettes," said Sandra Steingraber, a prominent activist and biologist at Ithaca College. "There's no way we can frack our way to climate stability. There's no scientific evidence for that."
EDF President Fred Krupp said the science behind his group's study is meant to be "impeccable" and that it is unrealistic to think that fracking natural gas won't continue.
"While [natural gas] is being used, the damage to the atmosphere is substantial unless the leaks are controlled," Krupp said. "I think somebody has to get down and dirty and working on that issue, even though there's mixed opinions to whether it's the right thing or the good thing to do" (Song/Bagley, Inside Climate News, April 8). -- AW
-
Industry Groups Would 'Welcome' New Regulations
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Daniel Bush
Oil and gas industry leaders today said they would welcome new federal regulations for offshore drilling so long as they don't restrict energy production or duplicate safety measures that producers put in place after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster.
American Petroleum Institute President and CEO Jack Gerard said industry groups want to work with federal regulators on the rule changes, but stressed that offshore drilling standards have already improved since BP PLC's massive oil spill.
"We're not waiting for regulators to [implement changes], we're leading the way," Gerard said in a conference call with reporters. "We're hopeful that regulators recognize" that.
Offshore drilling companies have upgraded well design, blowout preventer equipment and worker safety standards over the past five years -- resulting in no worker fatalities in 2013, Gerard said.
A new report by the Center for Offshore Safety found a 100 percent compliance rate among energy producers operating off the Gulf Coast since the Macondo spill (EnergyWire, April 9).
Still, Gerard said industry groups would "welcome with open arms" further changes.
"Anything the [Obama administration] comes up with in a constructive way to improve on those standards, we're fully accepting them," Gerard said.
The comments come on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon spill and as the Obama administration works to finalize a proposed rule for blowout preventers.
The rule would add to offshore drilling regulations put in place by the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement in 2012.
-
Grid Operator Says Regional Approach to Clean Power Plan Possible, Yet Costly
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Edward Klump
The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) said yesterday it could use a regional approach to comply with U.S. EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan, although the cost would be an estimated $2.9 billion a year.
The grid operator, which covers much of the Great Plains, detailed the findings in its second analysis of the plan, known as CPP, which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The annual compliance figure cited by SPP stems from energy production costs and capital investments related to generation resources.
SPP's report also highlighted potential retirement risks for as much as 13,900 megawatts of coal-fired generation beyond current assumptions in transmission planning.
Regional compliance would be possible by 2030 and probably would be less expensive than state-by-state attempts, Lanny Nickell, vice president of engineering at SPP, said in a statement. He said a carbon-cost adder was seen as effective, while some changes to resource plans would be needed.
The adder could act as a tax on carbon emissions at each fossil fuel unit, according to SPP. The operator's report found an adder of $30 to $45 a ton to be perhaps the most cost-effective avenue for a regional approach.
SPP released another analysis and comments to EPA last year, when it said the CPP might lead to transmission overloads and even cascading outages. It also called for more time for states to comply (EnergyWire, Oct. 10, 2014). Yesterday's report from SPP looked at the effects on existing generation and publicly available resource plans.
"This second analysis does not alter our earlier conclusion that additional infrastructure -- and time -- is needed to meet the CPP's proposed CO2 emission goals," SPP's Nickell said. "It takes time to develop a stable, secure, efficient and effective bulk electric power system necessary to support changes of the magnitude being proposed by the CPP."
A carbon emissions chart provided by SPP showed that by 2030, it could be at 1,285 pounds per megawatt-hour in a regional compliance plan, compared with 1,577 pounds per MWh in a business-as-usual case. The regional plan would be below an estimated goal for SPP of 1,309 pounds per MWh.
A third report is being undertaken and is expected to examine potential state-by-state compliance, SPP said.
EPA's Clean Power Plan, which has yet to be finalized, seeks a 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants by 2030 compared with 2005 levels. Targets vary by state, and a period with interim goals is set to begin in 2020.Questioning assumptions
John Moore, a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council's Sustainable FERC Project, said SPP's latest report fails some basic standards for good modeling, as it used implausible and unreasonable assumptions. He said the study assumed substantial work from coal plants, which drove up the cost.
"If SPP had done a model which allowed states to economically and fully use wind, solar, natural gas and energy efficiency, the compliance costs for the Clean Power Plan would have unquestionably been far lower," he said.
Moore also referred to the nearly 14,000 MW of additional coal retirements cited by SPP as very speculative. He called for SPP to work to develop a reasonable set of modeling assumptions, including with other regional transmission organizations. Moore did agree that there are benefits of regional compliance.
A blog post from an American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) website took issue with SPP's analysis, as well. For example, it said SPP used a high cost for wind, which the association argued inflated the cost of compliance by almost $1 billion a year. AWEA said wind costs may fall further in future years.
While SPP mentioned 13.9 gigawatts of coal generation shown as at risk of retiring, the wind association said SPP's report showed that just 2.2 GW would be likely to retire because of the CPP. The lower calculation by AWEA resulted from changing how capacity factors are considered.
EPA also defended its carbon proposal in an emailed statement yesterday, saying the plan would "maintain an affordable, reliable energy system, while cutting pollution and protecting our health and environment now and for future generations." It added that the proposal would provide "enough time for utilities to make changes without affecting reliability."
SPP said its analysis didn't evaluate certain infrastructure that could be needed to help support a regional compliance plan. The operator said more planning with stakeholders and new tools would be needed to pinpoint possible generation and transmission needs. SPP mentioned the possibility of system overloads and cascading outages if needed infrastructure didn't go in place.
SPP, which is based in Little Rock, Ark., offers services to members in at least some of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. It also is planning to expand services to members with at least some presence in Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.
Yesterday, SPP ended its assessment with a continued emphasis on timing.
"Implementation of an approved regional compliance plan will take time, as will potential mitigation measures to address unacceptable system conditions to accommodate retirements and/or retrofits to existing plants," SPP said.
Reporter Emily Holden contributed.
-
Report Touts Jobs as Benefit of Va. Compliance with Clean Power Plan
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Rod Kuckro
If Virginia chooses to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan by using most of the tools suggested by the agency, the result would be more than 5,700 new jobs by 2029, according to a report issued today by clean energy advocates.
If the state were to pursue a goal of eliminating all imports of electricity by doubling down on investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy projects, roughly 12,600 new jobs would be added by 2027, equal to the current level of employment in commercial construction, the report said.
The report, "Assessing Virginia's Energy Future: Employment Impacts of Clean Power Plan Compliance Scenarios," was prepared by Meister Consultants Group for the Advanced Energy Economy Institute and the Virginia Advanced Energy Industries Coalition.
Under EPA's draft Clean Power Plan to curb carbon emission from power plants, Virginia would be required to reduce its carbon emissions rate from electricity generation from 1,438 pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) to 810 lb/MWh by 2030.
The target is based on the agency's calculation of the state's ability to take measures such as increasing the efficiency of existing coal-fired power plants, shifting generation to natural-gas-fired plants with unused capacity, developing more renewable energy capacity (along with maintaining nuclear capacity) and increasing energy efficiency.
One observation in the AEE report is that Virginia's existing voluntary renewable portfolio standard of 15 percent by 2025 and 10 percent energy efficiency by 2022 would easily enable the state to meet the EPA goals.
That, coupled with maintaining Virginia's nuclear power fleet and the planned additions of five natural-gas-fired plants to replace coal plants, would get the state to compliance by the 2030 deadline, the report said.
"We have an opportunity to significantly increase employment in Virginia while achieving a lower-risk energy portfolio, greater grid resiliency, and satisfying the significant and growing demand for clean, advanced energy," said Francis Hodsoll, president of the Virginia Advanced Energy Industries Coalition, a business group representing a variety of energy technologies.
Clean energy advocates regularly tout the number of jobs created with the deployment of solar, wind and efficiency projects. Just last week, President Obama announced a plan to train 75,000 workers in the solar industry by 2020.
The report is the second in as many days focusing on possible ways Virginia could comply with the Clean Power Plan. On Tuesday, the Boston-based Acadia Center released a study urging Virginia to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (ClimateWire, April 8).
Legislation that would have accomplished that died in the Commonwealth's Republican-controlled Legislature earlier this year and never saw a vote.
The Acadia Center, which promotes renewable and low-carbon energy, argued joining the nine-state regional cap-and-trade program would be a low-cost, low-hassle way for Virginia to comply with the Clean Power Plan.
-
Will EPA's Clean Power Plan Help or Hurt the Poor?
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Environmental advocates and coal interests waging war over U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan are locking horns in a messaging battle about whether the climate regulations will help or hurt the poor.
The Natural Resources Defense Council yesterday released a report touting the rule's health and economic benefits to rural and low-income communities. The organization is planning outreach events around the country to build support for the regulation among local consumer advocacy groups in response to a "well-moneyed misinformation campaign" by the coal industry, according to NRDC Midwest advocate Katharine McCormick.
"Lately, there have been a lot of voices shouting about the impact that the Clean Power Plan will have on low-income communities, seniors, urban communities and rural communities," McCormick said. "Those industry-friendly voices are fighting to keep a status quo that is actively harming the very communities they're purporting to defend."
McCormick cited critical reports and editorials from groups like the 60 Plus Association, an advocacy organization for seniors, and the Cornwall Alliance, a conservative Christian public policy group.
The poor are more likely to live near coal-fired power plants and experience health problems, and they spend more of their income on electricity, NRDC says.
Cutting power-sector emissions of carbon dioxide and pollutants that accompany the planet-warming gas would prevent thousands of premature deaths, child asthma attacks, heart attacks and hospital admissions, NRDC contends. And reducing power usage through energy efficiency programs could lower electricity bills, the group argues.
NRDC's report aligns closely with the Obama administration's efforts to tie the regulation to public health benefits (ClimateWire, April 8).
Critics say the Clean Power Plan will drive up electricity prices by transitioning the grid from cheap coal to renewable energy and natural gas and by requiring efficiency improvements that the poor cannot afford, like those from light bulb and appliance standards.
National Mining Association spokesman Luke Popovich said the rule will be a regressive tax on low-income households.
"It is Orwellian for NRDC to claim that somehow eliminating the largest single source of affordable power in the electricity market will somehow help poor and low-income people," Popovich said. "If rising utility bills helps the poor, then a kazoo band is better than the Berlin Philharmonic and candy is good for your teeth."Civil rights activists split on issue
The NMA has drawn attention to letters from minority and civil rights leaders in the Southeast who think the Clean Power Plan would disproportionately burden the poor.
One letter, from Juanita Jones Abernathy -- the widow of Ralph David Abernathy, who worked closely with Martin Luther King Jr. -- says the proposal will increase the cost of utilities and "devastate those of us on a fixed income."
"For example, in Alabama, a poor state, it is my understanding the Power Company has already spent billions of dollars complying with EPA regulations and will be forced to shut down power plants which will cause many Alabamians to lose their jobs as well as increase their utility bills," Abernathy says.
But on an NRDC press call yesterday, the Rev. Gerald Durley -- a pastor at Providence Missionary Baptist Church in a low-income community in Atlanta -- said failing to act climate change is a civil rights violation.
"I approach this emerging crisis as a civil and human rights activist who joined up with Dr. King in 1960," Durley said. "We have a moral and an ethical obligation and a responsibility to challenge energy companies who continue to deny our civil rights by burning fossil fuels."
The messaging efforts from both sides seem to be aimed at swaying public opinion, although polling has repeatedly shown that voters rarely choose candidates based on climate policy.
Durley said climate change as a political issue would not drive voters in his community to the polls.
"I don't see it, at a certain level, in the low-income and minority community as a key issue, because we have not adequately addressed and put a face on the devastation occurring," he said.
But NRDC wants to bolster support for the rule among groups that could urge state environmental and electric regulators to write emissions-reducing plans that consider impacts to the poor. McCormick said low-income advocates and the communities they serve are being targeted by anti-regulation messages, and NRDC is trying to even out the playing field with panel discussions and roundtables in Des Moines, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Orlando, St. Louis, Kansas City and Cincinnati.
-
EPA Suggests States Withdraw Redundant Air Plans To Help Clear Backlog
Apr 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Stuart Parker
Janet McCabe, EPA's acting air chief, is suggesting that states should voluntarily withdraw outdated Clean Air Act state implementation plans (SIPs) still pending at the agency in order to help clear a backlog of hundreds of the air law compliance plans that has prompted calls for reform of the SIP process.
Speaking at the recent spring meeting of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) in Washington, D.C., McCabe floated the idea that states can voluntarily withdraw SIP submissions that are redundant because of changed circumstances since they were submitted -- which could potentially include the scrapping of a previous national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for which states had submitted compliance plans.
"There are hundreds of SIPs pending, some of them are decades old," McCabe said. She suggested that not all of these submissions still need be before the agency and that states could withdraw them.
EPA's regional offices are responsible for processing SIP submissions that states make to show how they will comply with the agency's NAAQS, interstate emissions limits, regional haze reduction mandates and other Clean Air Act obligations. However, the regions are struggling to review SIP submissions and either approve or deny them within a year from when EPA deems the submission "complete," as required by the air law.
An EPA spokeswoman says, "There are 655 SIPs that have undergone initial review and are pending final action. These SIPs are considered backlogged." The spokeswoman did not respond by press time to a request to identify how many of those plans might be candidates to be voluntarily withdrawn by states.
EPA is working toward a deadline of the end of 2017 to clear the backlog, under the terms of an Oct. 1, 2013, commitment the agency made with ECOS and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) in January 2014. ECOS, NACAA and EPA officials worked together on trying to devise ways to streamline the SIP processfollowing complaints from states about a lengthy and complicated process.
States say that the SIP planning requirements are increasingly burdensome at a time of shrinking resources, and EPA's own resource limits mean it is has limited ability to quickly review SIPs.
Under the ECOS-EPA-NACAA deal, each EPA region committed to establish with each state in the region a four-year management plan to set priorities and rate of progress for clearing the SIP backlog, and also managing review of all other SIPs. It is unclear, however, whether all regions and states yet have such management plans.
SIP Withdrawals
One state source says that asking states to withdraw SIPs and also negotiating with EPA on the relative priority of SIP applications "does sound like a very rational way to address and reduce the backlog."
The source says "the key will be for EPA and states to do so methodologically and with some discipline and determination to ensure it happens, and continues to happen, both to address the current backlog and to avoid creating future backlogs."
EPA refers to the SIP reform effort in its Feb. 23 draft Office of Air & Radiation National Program Manager Guidance(NPM) for fiscal years 2016-2017. EPA will "[c]ontinue working with states to identify further opportunities to streamline the SIP process as framed" in the deal with ECOS and NACAA.
In March 23 comments responding to the NPM, NACAA "commends" EPA for its continued commitment to clearing the SIP backlog.
NACAA further thanks EPA for the additional resources in the president's proposed budget to help states implement major air office programs, including both greenhouse gas measures such as its pending climate rules for power plants, and conventional pollution reduction programs.
However, "While the request is divided into $25 million for climate work and $15 million for core programs, we instead recommend flexibility to state and local air agencies with respect to how they spend the $40 million increase," NACAA says.
-
Why 2015 Could Be a Record Year for the Greening of U.S. Energy
Apr 9, 2015 | The Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
In general, changes to our energy system come slowly. It’s a marathon, not a sprint.
In general.
Nonetheless, 2015 is shaping up to be a pretty special year and a pretty significant 365-day shift in how we get our power, says a 2015 power market outlook released Thursday by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
“This Research Note is more sensationalist than we typically write,” it confesses.
The reason is a combination of three separate factors all moving in the same direction — an expected record for renewable energy installations, another forecast record for coal plant retirements and booming natural gas. The consequence, if these forecasts are realized, would be considerably cleaner energy and an impressive one-year drop in U.S. emissions.
“There’s basically these three big shifts underway, and they result in a drop in emissions, but more important, a structural shift towards a more decarbonized power fleet,” said William Nelson, BNEF’s head of North America analysis.
First, there’s the growth of renewables. BNEF is expecting a record of 18.5 gigawatts worth of renewable power sources to be built this year. That would exceed the prior record of 17.1 gigawatts in 2012.
Breaking that down, BNEF expects solar energy to set records in three separate areas — utility scale installations, rooftop installations and nonresidential rooftop builds. Wind and solar will contribute roughly the same amount as solar to the record year for renewables, the report predicts.
That itself is noteworthy — wind currently accounts for a significantly bigger proportion of overall U.S. electricity generation than solar. But solar has seen exploding growth recently.
But that’s just the start. The spike in renewables will be accompanied, the report forecasts, by “the largest wave of coal retirements in US history.” Fully 7 percent of U.S. coal energy generation is expected to shut down, spurred in part by the onset of a key mercury emissions rule but also by a tougher overall economic picture. The upshot will be “a fundamental reduction in coal’s share of the US power mix,” the report says.
“This could be the year that goes down in history as the year when we retire the most coal ever,” Nelson said.
And then, there’s natural gas. The prior record for natural gas burn was 25 billion cubic feet per day in 2012, notes BNEF, but 2015 stands to tie or eclipse that, driven by low prices and much “switching” from coal to gas burning.
“When gas prices drop, gas generators are able to undercut the price of coal-fired electricity,” Nelson said. “So even for the coal plants that stick around, they’re being challenged on an hourly basis by cheap gas.”
Here’s a figure from the report, showing forecast trend lines for rising gas and declining coal burning as a part of the U.S. electricity mix:
Bloomberg New Energy Finance, White Paper, April 8, 2015.The overall upshot of these changes, the report forecasts, should be a 2 percent drop in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from 2014 to 2015 — and an overall emissions level from the electric power sector that is 16 percent below where the sector’s emissions were in 2005.
This, too, is significant, in that U.S. GDP is forecast to grow between 2.3 and 2.7 percent over the course of 2015. If power sector emissions fall while GDP rises, that would suggest a “decoupling” of economic growth and emissions growth, at least for that sector — an encouraging sign that economic improvement doesn’t have to have, as a downside, faster growing climate risks.
[Why the global economy is growing, but CO2 emissions aren’t]
So what does it all mean?
One year still is, well, one year. In the grand scheme, we still will be getting more power from coal than from natural gas in 2015, more power from natural gas than from nuclear, more power from nuclear than from renewables. Energy wonks will not see any change to that overarching story, which has been consistent for some time.
Still, the trends are clear, and particularly noteworthy in light of the ever-intensifying battle over the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan — the proposed greenhouse gas regulation that would allow states to choose how to cut their emissions by privileging natural gas, renewables and other less-carbon-intensive choices.
The unmistakable upshot of the policy is that the United States will be getting a lot more of its power from wind, solar and natural gas, and a lot less from coal, the most-carbon-intensive fossil fuel to burn.
But that plan isn’t implemented yet — indeed, the EPA has not yet released its final rule, which is expected this summer — and the rule’s “compliance period” wouldn’t begin until 2020. It’s a major regulation, and it appears to be the future — but what 2015 shows is that, with or without it, we’re moving that way anyway.
Clarification: This article previously stated that BNEF was forecasting that 2015 greenhouse gas emissions overall would be 16 percent below 2005 levels. Actually, the forecast is only for emissions from the electric power sector. The text has been changed to reflect this.
-
Industry Cites EPA Uncertainty In Sustained Push For TCE Analysis Change
Apr 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Industry officials say an EPA analysis showing some agency scientists have low confidence in their conclusion that the solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) poses a risk of cardiac birth defects undermines the agency's recent rejection of an industry request to correct that determination, which could boost industry's ongoing push to revise the conclusion.
"They just don't give much credence to their own analysis," one industry source says of the internal review of TCE's birth defects risk, which EPA cited in a March 19 letter rejecting a November 2013 request for correction under the Information Quality Act (IQA) filed by the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. (HSIA), which represents producers and users of TCE. The IQA allows challenges to the accuracy of federal information.
A second industry source agrees, arguing the EPA analysis, "TCE Developmental Cardiac Toxicity Assessment Update," which appears to have been quietly released last summer, shows only a "tepid endorsement" of the agency's conclusion that TCE poses a risk of cardiac birth defects.
EPA's inclusion of the novel birth defects risk in its September 2011 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of TCE was based in part on a 2003 toxicology study by Paula D. Johnson showing birth defects in lab rodents exposed to TCE, but which industry argues is flawed and unreproducible.
Industry pushback against EPA's use of the Johnson study and a birth defects risk for TCE has included the November 2013 request for correction under the IQA, meetings late last year with federal officials, and an offer to fund a federal study similar to the Johnson study to determine whether TCE causes birth defects.
Also, in April 2012, industry lawyers requested that EPA conduct a headquarters-level review of the evidence underlying IRIS' determination TCE poses a risk of cardiac birth defects.
Both industry sources say they were not aware that EPA conducted such a review until the March 19 letter rejecting HSIA's request for correction, which cited the agency's TCE update.
In the March 19 letter, EPA cites the review document, which was posted to a public website July 17. The public docket was used to track development of an agency risk assessment of certain uses of TCE, and was reopened last summer to support the agency's consideration of restrictions on the solvent under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The industry sources, who closely follow EPA's TCE policies, say the agency's recent announcement of the updated review came as a surprise given the study addresses industry concerns and appears to address the industry lawyers' April 2012 request for a headquarters-level review.
The sources say the agency may have downplayed release of the update last summer since it shows disagreement within the agency regarding the strength of the evidence supporting the conclusion that TCE poses a risk of cardiac birth defects.
Dose Response
"They come to the conclusion that relying on the Johnson study is justified, but seven of 11 scientists find the confidence to rely on the Johnson study for dose response analysis is not appropriate or low, yet they do it," the first industry source says, citing the EPA update.
According to the March 19 letter, a team of EPA scientists conducted a systematic evaluation of the birth defects risk that weighed the quality and design of studies underlying the birth defects, examined the dose response for cardiac defects and considered objections that have been raised since publication of the IRIS assessment.
In the undated document describing the review, EPA says the review team included experts from EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, as well as its National Center for Computational Toxicology and the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory.
The agency TCE update sought "to ensure rigorous scientific review of associations between short-term exposure to TCE and fetal cardiac defects," the document says.
The study affirms IRIS' conclusion that TCE poses a risk of cardiac birth defects, but also acknowledges one scientist disagreed with the conclusion because of uncertainties surrounding the underlying studies, including the Johnson study.
"The majority of the team members agreed that the overall evidence in the TCE database supports a conclusion that TCE is likely to cause cardiac defects at sufficient doses when exposure occurs during a sensitive period of fetal development," according to the update document.
The document also shows that scientists differed in their degree of confidence in the conclusion, with some describing their confidence as low.
"The team had a range of views as to their confidence in the conclusion regarding hazard for cardiac defects -- with three out of nine scientists expressing an opinion concluding the confidence should be medium to high, and six of nine concluding confidence should be 'low' or 'medium'," the update says.
With regard to the Johnson study, scientists agreed it could be used to support risk assessment, but wavered in their support of its value in determining a dose-response relationship. Seven of 11 scientists rated their confidence in the study for that purpose as low and four as low to medium, the study says.
Risk Uncertainties
In addition to affirming IRIS, the document also says the update yielded a better understanding of uncertainties surrounding the birth defects risk, and led to expanded consideration of data that could support future research on how birth defects result from exposures.
And the agency acknowledges the conclusion is based in part epidemiological studies, which have limitations as a result of "exposure measurement error and lower statistical power due to the rarity of cardiac defects."
In the update, EPA scientists call for future research to better explore various aspects of the birth defects risk, including better characterization of human exposures and outcomes.
EPA posted the study document July 17, shortly after finalizing on June 25 the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) assessment of risks from certain uses of TCE, a factor in the agency's recent announcements that it is considering restrictions on use of TCE under TSCA.
The agency conducted the OPPT assessment of TCE as part of a novel program that seeks to better regulate existing chemicals under the agency's authority under the current TSCA, as Congress weighs an overhaul of the decades-old law.
Although agency peer reviewers backed the 2011 IRIS assessment, several peer reviewers in the summer of 2013 criticized OPPT's draft TSCA assessment of uses of TCE by hobbyists and in small shops, faulting the agency's inclusion of the Johnson study as part of the review's hazard assessment. The June 25 assessment found TCE poses risks to workers from degreasing in small shops and in dry cleaners when used as a stain remover.
EPA published its TCE update on the online docket tracking the OPPT assessment, which was reopened after the agency began weighing restrictions on TCE under TSCA.
The online publication of the review also came a month before the agency issued an Aug. 27 memo to its regional Superfund directors, backing use of "early or interim" action to reduce risks from TCE exposure at contaminated sites.
The document appeared to support action levels that EPA Region 9 as well as some other regions and states have instituted to determine when mitigation is needed to reduce risks to women of child-bearing age. In the memo, EPA also acknowledged that the question of what contamination level causes a health risk in the short-term remains unanswered.
Birth Defects
Industry sources have called EPA's August memo a punt that would allow a patchwork of standards for addressing the risk of birth defects from TCE to persist. Additionally, HSIA in an April 2013 letter to the Agency for Toxic Substances Control and Disease Registry offered to sponsor a new federal study of whether TCE poses a risk of cardiac birth defects.
Industry representatives also met Nov. 3 with IRIS staff and urged the agency to study whether TCE poses a risk of cardiac birth defects. According to a draft agenda from the meeting, officials discussed the rationale and value of a repeat study, as well as objectives to ensure a study would support regulatory decision-making.
While the EPA update calls for additional research into TCE's developmental risk, an industry source says federal officials have not explicitly said whether they will accept HSIA's long-standing offer to fund a study.
-
Vapor Intrusion, TCE Increase Liability And Planning At Brownfield Sites
Apr 9, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Dave Reynolds
Changes to federal approaches and state programs for assessing and mitigating risks from vapor intrusion, especially the common contaminant trichloroetheylene (TCE), are increasing liability at contaminated sites known as brownfields, and forcing owners and developers to better plan how to reduce risks from contamination left in place.
David Gillay, of Barnes and Thornburg LLP, a lawyer who advises developers, told a March 24 Association of Environmental Health Science Foundation (AEHS) conference, sponsored in part by EPA, that as federal and state regulators, as well as professional organizations, tighten policies and guidance for assessing vapor intrusion, site cleanups require better planning to limit liability and reduce risk.
"If you don't clean up property to general residual cleanup levels, you will continue to have potential liability, subject to new pathways and subject to toxicity changes," Gillay told the conference. "Unless you have a systematic approach to identifying the costs and identifying the future risks, it's going to be really difficult to make decisions that are cost effective."
Increased potential for long-term liability at contaminated sites comes as EPA and states have increased focus on potential health risks from vapor intrusion, which once went largely unaddressed but are now causing state and federal regulators to reopen sites for further evaluation, sources say.
Much of the concern surrounding vapor intrusion focuses on sites contaminated with TCE, which EPA's September 2011 Integrated Risk Information System assessment says poses a risk of cardiac birth defects, a developmental effect that implies risk from short-term inhalation of the common contaminant.
In his presentation, "Vapor Intrusion Exposure: Long-Term Evidence-Based Protection & Sustainability: Long-Term Stewardship -- Survey of LTS Programs," Gillay says recent science surrounding vapor intrusion and TCE have prompted a host of changes that are now converging on owners and potential purchasers of contaminated property.
For years, EPA has been crafting new guidance documents for assessing and mitigating risks from vapor intrusion from chlorinated solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons, though release of the guidance, which is currently undergoing White House Office of Management and Budget review, has been delayed.
Meanwhile, states have moved forward with tightening their own vapor intrusion policies, and Gillay told the conference that more than 30 states have recently said, in response to a survey from The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), that they are reassessing policies for the long-term stewardship of contaminated sites to better protect against vapor intrusion.
ITRC works with federal agencies and industry to make it easier to use environmental technologies.
Due Diligence
Also, in 2013, the professional organization ASTM International updated its standard for potential developers conducting due diligence to include a presumption that detailed record searches be conducted and to call for the potential for vapor intrusion to be considered like any other contaminant pathway, drawing increased attention to the exposure pathway in property transactions.
EPA brownfields regulations reference the ASTM standard as a way to comply with all appropriate inquiring requirements that can limit cleanup liability for developers of contaminated property.
Gillay and another industry lawyer agree recent and pending changes in federal guidance, state policies, and professional standards to better address vapor intrusion are converging on responsible parties and prospective purchasers, leading to increased site assessment and planning.
But the attorneys differ on whether that is resulting in a chilling effect on the redevelopment of contaminated properties.
Speaking to the AEHS conference, Gillay said developers must take reasonable, though not clearly defined steps to stop a release and prevent a future threat, a complex proposition for TCE-contaminated sites where vapor intrusion is a concern. For example, noting cases where TCE-contaminated groundwater migrates off-site, Gillay told the conference that prospective purchasers may be required to follow the contamination and knock on neighboring doors to discuss monitoring or mitigation of vapor intrusion risk.
In an interview with Inside EPA, Gillay says such continuing obligations, resulting from increased focus on vapor intrusion and the changing toxicity of TCE, are slowing brownfield re-development as developers and responsible parties are being forced "to think about these long-term issues up front, rather than at the end."
But Gillay also said the obligations do not have to chill development and that "these things can be properly managed."
A second industry source agrees that re-opening cleanup agreements of sites once thought safe from exposure to contamination, to address risks from vapor intrusion, is a growing concern. But the source says the changes are leading to more thorough assessments and better long-term planning and not slowing development.
Liability arises when sites are not properly assessed and risks are not well-understood, the source says. When risks are fully understood, they can be addressed, the source says, noting that putting vapor mitigation systems in new buildings is not difficult, though installing similar systems in existing structures is more of a challenge.
Still, developers, responsible parties, and their advisors are feeling pressure to be more proactive in assessing risks from vapor intrusion, and are responding.
"There's more recognition that long-term stewardship and / or ongoing continuing obligations is a bigger concern," the source says. "If you're involved with a property with these issues, you need to consider those long-term issues earlier, they're looming more important all the time."
-
Pacific Northwest Tribe Sues Over Crude-by-Rail Shipments
Apr 9, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
An American Indian tribe is taking on one of the nation's biggest railroad operators, suing BNSF Railway Co. over crude oil shipments on tribal land in Washington state.
The Swinomish Indian Tribal Community filed suit this week in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington alleging that BNSF breached an easement agreement by carrying large shipments of oil from the Bakken Shale across Swinomish land without notifying the tribe. The increased traffic brings environmental and safety hazards to the Indian reservation and waterways in northwest Washington, attorneys said in a filing this week.
"Based on the demonstrated hazards of shipping Bakken Crude by rail, paired with the proximity of the Right-of-Way to the Tribe's critical economic and environmental resources and facilities -- and the substantial numbers of people who use those resources and facilities on a daily basis," the complaint says, "the Tribe is justifiably and gravely concerned with BNSF's shipment of Bakken Crude across the Right-of-Way in a manner and in quantities at odds with the explicit terms of the Easement Agreement."
The lawsuit is one in a growing stack of legal challenges to crude-by-rail expansion projects in the Pacific Northwest. Just two months ago, local officials in Skagit County, where the Swinomish reservation is located, found that a related rail extension project in the region had not undergone sufficient environmental review. Several other challenges are ongoing in Washington, Oregon, California and New York (EnergyWire, March 20).
The Swinomish people, a federally recognized tribe with about 900 members, entered into an easement agreement with BNSF in 1991 allowing the company to bring one 25-car train per day in each direction on the tracks that cross Indian land. But according to the lawsuit, the company is now running 100-car trains carrying crude oil almost daily.
The legal contention centers on a provision of the easement agreement that bars the tribe from "arbitrarily" withholding permission for a shipper to increase trains or cars when needed. The tribe is asking the federal court to issue a judgment that declares the tribe's opposition to the increase to be not arbitrary. It's also asking for an injunction on crude shipments on the rail line and damages from BNSF for trespassing.
"We told BNSF to stop, again and again," tribal Chairman Brian Cladoosby said in a statement. "We also told BNSF: convince us why we should allow these oil trains to cross the Reservation. And we listened for two years, even while the trains kept rolling. But experiences across the country have now shown us all the dangers of Bakken Crude. It's unacceptable for BNSF to put our people and our way of life at risk without regard to the agreement we established in good faith."
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Transportation News
Add recipients
Suggested